INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro
Data de Publicação: 2021
Tipo de documento: preprint
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: SciELO Preprints
Texto Completo: https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/2885
Resumo: It focuses on the creation of the scientific journal and the 16th century when knowledge was discussed in the public arena (open review) and by decision of the inquisitors (evaluators) the authors were imprisoned until they changed (or not) their minds. The periodical was first handed over to book publishers who accepted the intent as it approached its socialization, the expansion in economically profitable quantity until it was sponsored by commercial and university publishers. In this journey, the idea of blind review arises and consolidates. Although open science has from the 20th and 21st centuries onwards technologies can be able to help science solve problems: making communication between individuals faster; knowledge available for scientific records; transformations of scientific records stored and consulted, and open access, the open review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific communication, despite editors, authors and reviewers defending it. Evaluation in an open system suits science in this condition, although there is no unanimity in scientific communication about the possibility of widespread use of open peer review (OPR). This article encourages and supports arguments, not necessarily providing all the answers, reaching the objective in favor of open evaluation, in modern times.
id SCI-1_2c0665c38a49a24606b669dfad731be4
oai_identifier_str oai:ops.preprints.scielo.org:preprint/2885
network_acronym_str SCI-1
network_name_str SciELO Preprints
repository_id_str
spelling INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATIONINCURSÕES SOBRE AVALIAÇÃO ABERTAOpen peer reviewOpen reviewScientific communicationOpen scienceAvaliação abertaOpen peer reviewOpen reviewComunicação científicaCiência abertaIt focuses on the creation of the scientific journal and the 16th century when knowledge was discussed in the public arena (open review) and by decision of the inquisitors (evaluators) the authors were imprisoned until they changed (or not) their minds. The periodical was first handed over to book publishers who accepted the intent as it approached its socialization, the expansion in economically profitable quantity until it was sponsored by commercial and university publishers. In this journey, the idea of blind review arises and consolidates. Although open science has from the 20th and 21st centuries onwards technologies can be able to help science solve problems: making communication between individuals faster; knowledge available for scientific records; transformations of scientific records stored and consulted, and open access, the open review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific communication, despite editors, authors and reviewers defending it. Evaluation in an open system suits science in this condition, although there is no unanimity in scientific communication about the possibility of widespread use of open peer review (OPR). This article encourages and supports arguments, not necessarily providing all the answers, reaching the objective in favor of open evaluation, in modern times.Focaliza a criação do periódico científico e o início do século XVI época em que o conhecimento era discutido em praça pública ( revisão aberta ) e por decisão dos inquisidores (avaliadores) os autores eram aprisionados até mudar (ou não) de ideia. O periódico foi primeiro entregue aos editores de livros que aceitaram o intento avizinhando sua socialização, a ampliação em quantidade economicamente rentável até ser patrocinado por editoras comerciais e universitárias. Nessa travessia a ideia de blind review surge e se consolida. Embora a ciência aberta conte a partir dos séculos XX e XXI com tecnologias aptas a ajudar a ciência a problemas de resolução: tornando a comunicação mais rápida entre os nossos proprietários;conhecimento disponível para os registros científicos; transformações dos registros científicos armazenados e consultados, e acesso aberto, uma revisão aberta que ofertaia mais qualificação, ainda não conquistou o espaço na comunicação científica a despeito de editores, autores e avaliadores a defenderem. A avaliação em sistema aberto convém à ciência nessa condição, embora não haja unanimidade na comunicação científica da possibilidade de uso generalizado de revisão por pares aberta (OPR). Este artigo, fomenta e respalda argumentações, não necessariamente obrigada a todas as respostas, mas, atingindo o objetivo em favor da avaliação aberta, nos tempos hodiernos.SciELO PreprintsSciELO PreprintsSciELO Preprints2021-09-08info:eu-repo/semantics/preprintinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/288510.1590/SciELOPreprints.2885porhttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/article/view/2885/5114Copyright (c) 2021 Joana Coeli Ribeiro Garciahttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGarcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiroreponame:SciELO Preprintsinstname:SciELOinstacron:SCI2021-08-31T21:57:50Zoai:ops.preprints.scielo.org:preprint/2885Servidor de preprintshttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scieloONGhttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/oaiscielo.submission@scielo.orgopendoar:2021-08-31T21:57:50SciELO Preprints - SciELOfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION
INCURSÕES SOBRE AVALIAÇÃO ABERTA
title INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION
spellingShingle INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION
Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro
Open peer review
Open review
Scientific communication
Open science
Avaliação aberta
Open peer review
Open review
Comunicação científica
Ciência aberta
title_short INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION
title_full INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION
title_fullStr INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION
title_full_unstemmed INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION
title_sort INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION
author Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro
author_facet Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Open peer review
Open review
Scientific communication
Open science
Avaliação aberta
Open peer review
Open review
Comunicação científica
Ciência aberta
topic Open peer review
Open review
Scientific communication
Open science
Avaliação aberta
Open peer review
Open review
Comunicação científica
Ciência aberta
description It focuses on the creation of the scientific journal and the 16th century when knowledge was discussed in the public arena (open review) and by decision of the inquisitors (evaluators) the authors were imprisoned until they changed (or not) their minds. The periodical was first handed over to book publishers who accepted the intent as it approached its socialization, the expansion in economically profitable quantity until it was sponsored by commercial and university publishers. In this journey, the idea of blind review arises and consolidates. Although open science has from the 20th and 21st centuries onwards technologies can be able to help science solve problems: making communication between individuals faster; knowledge available for scientific records; transformations of scientific records stored and consulted, and open access, the open review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific communication, despite editors, authors and reviewers defending it. Evaluation in an open system suits science in this condition, although there is no unanimity in scientific communication about the possibility of widespread use of open peer review (OPR). This article encourages and supports arguments, not necessarily providing all the answers, reaching the objective in favor of open evaluation, in modern times.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-09-08
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/preprint
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format preprint
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/2885
10.1590/SciELOPreprints.2885
url https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/2885
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/SciELOPreprints.2885
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/article/view/2885/5114
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Joana Coeli Ribeiro Garcia
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Joana Coeli Ribeiro Garcia
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv SciELO Preprints
SciELO Preprints
SciELO Preprints
publisher.none.fl_str_mv SciELO Preprints
SciELO Preprints
SciELO Preprints
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:SciELO Preprints
instname:SciELO
instacron:SCI
instname_str SciELO
instacron_str SCI
institution SCI
reponame_str SciELO Preprints
collection SciELO Preprints
repository.name.fl_str_mv SciELO Preprints - SciELO
repository.mail.fl_str_mv scielo.submission@scielo.org
_version_ 1797047824809984000